2 |
Multi-Multi-View Learning: Multilingual and Multi-Representation Entity Typing
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
3 |
A Probabilistic Annotation Model for Crowdsourcing Coreference
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
4 |
Investigating the role of argumentation in the rhetorical analysis of scientific publications with neural multi-task learning models
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
5 |
Adversarial propagation and zero-shot cross-lingual transfer of word vector specialization
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
7 |
And That's A Fact: Distinguishing Factual and Emotional Argumentation in Online Dialogue ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
8 |
Are you serious?: Rhetorical Questions and Sarcasm in Social Media Dialog ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
10 |
Creating and Characterizing a Diverse Corpus of Sarcasm in Dialogue ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
11 |
Domain-specific coreference resolution with lexicalized features
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
16 |
Conundrums in noun phrase coreference resolution: making sense of the state-of-the-art
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
17 |
Toward completeness in concept extraction and classification
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
Journal Article ; Many algorithms extract terms from text together with some kind of taxonomic classification (is-a) link. However, the general approaches used today, and specifically the methods of evaluating results, exhibit serious shortcomings. Harvesting without focusing on a specific conceptual area may deliver large numbers of terms, but they are scattered over an immense concept space, making Recall judgments impossible. Regarding Precision, simply judging the correctness of terms and their individual classification links may provide high scores, but this doesn't help with the eventual assembly of terms into a single coherent taxonomy. Furthermore, since there is no correct and complete gold standard to measure against, most work invents some ad hoc evaluation measure. We present an algorithm that is more precise and complete than previous ones for identifying from web text just those concepts ‘below' a given seed term. Comparing the results to WordNet, we find that the algorithm misses terms, but also that it learns many new terms not in WordNet, and that it classifies them in ways acceptable to humans but different from WordNet.
|
|
Keyword:
Categorization (Linguistics); Concept classification; Concept extraction; Information retrieval; WordNet
|
|
URL: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6xh08bv
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
18 |
Corpus-based semantic lexicon induction with web-based corroboration
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
19 |
Unified model of phrasal and sentential evidence for information extraction
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
20 |
Semantic class learning from the web with hyponym pattern linkage graphs
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|